what is "consciousness"?

Yes you can. What is being communicated doesn't come from me. It comes from you. What you are avoiding has nothing to do with me. There is no 'me' in this.There comes a time in everyone's life when they realize that what they have been doing is distracting themselves from the 'matter at hand". You could call it 'inauthenticity'. You realize that you have been looking into the 'world' to define who you are instead of shouldering the burden of 'Be'-ing who you are and creating 'meaning' for your 'self'. Only by 'deconstructing' the concepts of living that you hide behind can you create enough room for you to 'Be'. Otherwise, those 'concepts' are living your life for you. (You either admit that you know what I'm talking about or you deny it).What you speak of here is the crux of the matter. Your request to have further discourse about what you think and compare notes is the avoidance I am referring to. You are where this entire conversation resides, however, you keep expecting me to define life for you so you can 'understand' (I say avoid). You already understand otherwise you wouldn't know enough about what we're talking about to carry on a conversation.

"You either admit that you know what I'm talking about or you deny it"

So there's no room for questioning in your mind, all you want to do is not discuss ideas, but perpetuate what you've read in one book.

The entire manner in which you speak has been constructed from a book you've read. What your arguing is that people hide behind constructions, conceptual constructions, that they use to feel secure in themselves. What is it that you think you've done by reading Being and Time?

The post I'm replying to, which is your post, contains concepts, concepts which it could be argued, you use to feel secure in yourself. Your claim that people "hide behind" concepts is largely baseless, but I've seen the way you've talked to me and others on here, and you're not willing to come out from the concepts you hide behind. You just accuse others, without looking at yourself.

You cannot escape the fact that we're dependent on conceptual information and ideas.

Your whole position is self-contradictory.

Don't you realize that the only one you could possibly muster this argument up against is you? Haven't 'you' always been there in any and every situation? Is it possible for you to escape you?

Don't you think if Dasein's posts apparently make you argue with yourself there might be some sort of 'issue' on your end?

Again, aren't 'you' where all of this is taking place? Where else could it be?

As I said before, I am closing the door on discourse with you. I wish you all the best.

How do you know we have nothing more to talk about?

You really are that self-satisfied?

I was away for awhile, and I think a2k merged with some other phil forum, and Im starting to suspect that in that place they were all gods who each had their own little universe to play with. I am still adjusting...

It only designates awareness.

It shouldn't be long before that joker has no one to talk to.

Hilarious . . . the sad thing is that the sensible philosophy forum refugees have dropped out here . . .

Ouch.

Just because 10 million flies love playing on a dog turd doesn't mean I'm going to land there.

You invited me to play on your dog turd, and foolishly, I joined you.

You're not a fool for joining in, you are a fool for defending your conclusions and quitting. You want someone to define everything for you and when they don't you don't think for a second that maybe what you're requesting won't get you where you want to go.

Like you, Cyracuz, Setanta, and Fil Albuquerque, most people defend their way of thinking instead of questioning the tradition they where born into.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” -Albert Einstein

This is why I slammed the door on you and others. What's the point of talking to someone who doesn't have any ears?

Self-satisfied, and presumptuous. It gets better!

As I said in a previous postVery predictable. You are so right in your conclusions that you will never see what I'm talking about. You will only hit the ball back over the net, thinking you're accomplishing something.

See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya!

To be honest with you, I don't know why you've wasted as much time as you have.

It seems like most of the people around here(the planet) seem to think that they can change the present by using methods devised in the past.(what was it that was said about insanity?)

It comes from entanglement.

awareness of consequences of actions , from within and without and the degree of the combinations of both

You have to make sure the light is off before you close the door.

BTW - I am half way through my 74th reading of Being and Time. The 'goodies' show up in the 74th reading.

What you and I have been dealing with in this last series of postings is the realization that part of the make up of 'Be'-ing-there' (Dasein) is its 'thrownness' to flee in the face of its self. The moment of fleeing back into the world is the reminder of the already existing understanding of 'Be'-ing-there'.

What that means is that as everybody lives their life and they 'tire' of the world living their life for them, they will head towards 'Be'-ing-there' by thinking, reading, studying, seminars, etc. When they come face-to-face with their own 'Be'-ing-there', they will flee back into the world and get caught up in it until the next time. This 'fleeing in the face of' reminds them of 2 things: 1) it shows them that they live alongside of a world and 2) that they already have an understanding of 'Be'-ing-there' and they can choose to live their life authentically or inauthentically by choosing to be who they are or not.

The good news is that you begin to notice your 'fleeing in the face of' faster and give your 'self' a choice in the matter.

The bad news is that if you don't notice your 'fleeing in the face of', you don't have a choice.

I don't know what is most alarming, that you read it 74 times or that you kept count...